Fleas, Lice and Ticks

From the MGTOW men over at /r/mgtow, one talks about how repulsed he is by hypergamy:

Everytime a woman has come onto me it has been for an obvious reason. One of the first expiriences with hypergamy was after I won my first race in high school track. 10 minutes after I win, this attractive girl who had previously all but ignored me suddenly out of the blue comes up to where I am sitting and sits next to me and starts talking to me for the first time.

I was turned off by how obvious her motives were. I knew our personalities were too different, but apparently, from my repeated expiriences with hypergamy, I have concluded that women aren't attracted to similar personalities, instead they are attracted to status.

I see it time and time again whenever a girl asks me where I work, and I tell her I am own a business, suddenly their eyes light up, and they start laughing and coming onto me.

It's always disgusted me when this happens. They are so predictable.

On the other hand, I am also not attracted to about 99% of women based on their personalities alone. They talk about trivial things, they laugh at stupid jokes, they aren't smart, and they always fall for guys based on predictable shit.

So part of my problem is that when a girl is attracted to me, 99% of the time, I know that our personalities are too different for it to even be worthwhile. I would basically have to pretend to be someone else in order to keep her interested, and that isn't worth it because I would feel like a fraud. A lot of pickup artist guys do this, they actually do pretend to be a different person, and it makes me cringe. Basically, they are whoring their emotions and pretending to like all the stupid shit that women like in order to get some pussy, but in my opinion, getting pussy without a real emotional connection isn't worth it. At that point you are basically whoring yourself and giving them the magical expirience that they fantasize about, while you just have to work to appeal to them so that you can maybe get your dick wet at some point.

What do you guys think of this? Does anyone else have these problems? And is there a way to overcome it?

The op's quandry is a real one, however he's not consciously aware of why he feels this aversion. So I will define so-called "hypergamy" in no uncertain terms for the first-and-last-time:

Hypergamy (adj.): The action of a parasite consciously choosing it's host. Said choosing is not final and can be re-chosen at any time that seems advantageous for the parasite in question. In extreme cases, multiple parasites can attempt to fasten themselves at the same time to a single host which appears to be of high value.

Therefore: "hypergamy" is a pretentious/highfalutin' word to describe the actions of a parasite consciously choosing its new host.

[Okay, so I suppose that hypergamy does bloody exist when looked at in that way, and good vs bad behavior, training, rigidly-enforced social norms, and etc can keep it under control. Shit and damnation. So now I'm gonna gripe and bitch about the word: Why the fuck did they invent a special word for it? We've had the concepts for centuries if not millennia. Is this because aca-fuckin'-demia decided to make it a word and put some papers together and label it as uncontrollable and ask for more $$$ to line their pockets? Is this part of the leftist/Marxist/Feminist social-manipulation to make men even more helpless? And did some pretentious twat in the manosphere grab it and run with it with the purpose of making more $$$ because they're on the so-called "cutting edge" of research? A lot more thinking is required on that one. - BPS]

So this is 100% greed/theft (both original sins) coupled with the "grass is greener" mentality. Which ties in very neatly with the books "The Predatory Female" and "The Manipulated Man" and others under the Worthwhile Books page/link.

So the op's aversion boils down to the natural aversion of someone noticing a bunch of fleas, lice, and ticks trying to fasten themselves to him with the purpose of sucking on his blood (or effort/life/time as the case may be).

He is extremely lucky that the attractive girl who suddenly started talking with him was so overt and unpracticed - he could have found himself in baby-jail as the unwilling host/slave of a parasite for 20+ years, then raped of the rest of his life via frivorce/etc. She was obviously unpolished and still learning her trade. What might have been going on in her mind? "Never mind the fuckup. There'll be another host/slave. They're all interchangeable."

Yes, women are attracted to status and money - because these are the signs of a worthwhile host.

There are some other notable comments in the thread:

Sure, being attracted to success, "good genes" etc. is kinda natural and to be expected. But women are completely over the top about this. If you physically and mentally cannot be satisfied by something slightly less than perfect, if you cannot be happy with someone who is not vastly superior to yourself, if mass murderers are attractive to you, then you're a nothing but a fucking animal.

And not only is this crap tolerated, it's encouraged in modern society. We give women moral approval to shamelessly pursue Alpha cock and Beta provision AND deal with the collateral damage collectively.

Thousands of years ago, people already figured out that letting hypergamy run rampant is NOT compatible with civilization. We now see the result of doing just that: disenfranchised beta males, perpetually unhappy women engaging in self-destructing behavior and thugs ("Alphas") freely reproducing which causes the upbringing of violent and damaged children (thug genes + single mother = desaster).

I can't remember where I read it, however it was along the lines of the change in mores of society in the past hundred years or so. In the old days younger people looked up to and paid heed to their elders - because of the sheer experience they had accumulated.

Then advertising came along and this mentality was deliberately flipped - youth became celebrated. Because the young can be coaxed into doing stupid things, like buying crap they don't need and going on travel "experiences" that they will not remember because they're too quick and whirlwind, and putting down no money on 30-year ARM/interest-only loans for houses which are stupidly fuckin' expensive.

Youth became the easy-ass host for the economic parasites of our waning civilization. Even those baby-mommas are in a quasi-parasitic-symbiotic relationship with our parasitic government, sucking the effort/life/time out of the worker-men of society.

Here is one more quote that I consider very relevant:

So let me ask a question. When you watch porn, do you watch porn with hot coed girls, or 40 year old with wrinkles and saggy tits?

This is no more or less shallow than women's hypergamy. Men are expendable, woman are perishable.

The good news is that you can climb up the wall, while a woman can't. Plus, if you do so you can get more than your fair share of women.

My problem with hypergamy is only that's it's unrestrained. If women wouldn't get babies with Chad and have tax money pay for it and betas wouldn't wife up sloots, hypergamy is fine.

Porn is the celebration of youth again, though admittedly I can't get a boner for chicks who are wrinkled to hell and sagging everywhere. I quite like the "men are expendable, women are perishable" concept. Echoes of the "men age like wine, women age like milk" saying. The surviving men definitely become remarkably fine as we get older.

The commentor correctly notes that men can climb up the wall while women cannot, and shows neatly that women look for "high-climbers" to parasitize off. The only way she can climb that wall is to leech on to either:

a) a man in the process of doing it (thus slowing him down, perhaps stopping his climb permanently or causing him to fall)

b) a man who has already done it (which won't slow him down at all, plus she doesn't have to experience any of the trials/tribulations/pain that he had to experience during the climb)

The latter is, of course, the prime goal for any young and good-looking piece of fluff arm-candy.

This commentor makes what I consider to be one major mistake in his thinking: he considers hypergamy/parasitism to be unrestrained. In my opinion he is 100% wrong with that thinking.

Parasitism is lauded and actively encouraged in our matriarchical woman-centric society. Just ask most long-term married men and the victims of frivorce and the children who have been weaponized by mommy so she can use them to beat daddy over the head for child-support.

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™, only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

Hypergamy or Lazy Parasite?

Commentor Sven Sversen makes a great long comment on my post about women being Infantile:

"Hypergamy" is a term borrowed from biology, I believe. It refers to a preference for mating *upward*: Men don't want girls they look up to (Pyjama Boy does, if he wants a girl at all, but he's defective). Girls are only attracted to men they look up to. They are *only* attracted to men they consider superior to themselves.

Yeah, yeah, men *fantasize* about 10s. And some fantasize about girl-power action hero fantasy characters. But basically all men can happily be in love for their whole lives with very ordinary women who they consider weaker than themselves. If a man thinks his wife is stronger than himself, every man and every woman (most especially his wife) thinks he's a pussy, defective. A loser.

A man is happy if he's the source of strength. A woman is happy if HE is the source of strength. She is *miserable* if *she* is the source of strength. That's hypergamy.
Women absolutely require that their man be emotionally and physically stronger than them, and dominant. Dominant in an effortless, casual way. If he's not smarter and higher earning too, he'd better be a hell of a charming SOB.

I know a female statistician married to a senior fireman. You know how women are about firemen. He's a level headed, responsible man who leads men, sound judgment, proven physically brave, a great father, and pre-selected to hell and back -- well out of her league by any sane standards. She's unhaaapy because she makes more money and he doesn't put her in her place. Silly bitch. She should be on her knees thanking God for letting her have this man in her life.

But he doesn't know how to put her in her place, and she makes more money.
That's hypergamy. Nothing to do with pre-selection. It's about relative "value", as women perceive it in their narrow little pea brains. That woman has an IQ nearly as high as mine and knows ten times more math -- and she's got the brains of a goldfish.

I was just thinking about the dominance thing the other day. I'm pretty funny, faster on my feet than most. I have a hell of an imagination. I can improvise the craziest shit. It takes all that every day to keep my girlfriend submissive, and she ain't in my league by half, on looks or anything else. Plus I earn twice what she does, and she knows it. Silly American bitch. Delusional.

If I've got to work to stay on top of this one, WTF is the average guy supposed to do? Nine hours hanging sheetrock or some shit and he's supposed to come home and effortlessly dominate an exchange of repartee with some angry fat skank? How about you boil the fucking spaghetti and shut your trap, Jumbo?

Maybe you MGTOW guys have a point. These dumb bitches are psychotic.

For the record it looks like the term Hypergamy comes from the Social Sciences, according to Wikipedia (there's some contention between Evolutionary Psychology and Social Learning Theorists). It is very much worth reading what Wikipedia says about it - though keep in mind that Wikipedia is only the topmost fluff-and-bare-bones of any subject. We also need to keep in mind that anything to do with society and social sciences is open to observer bias and interpretation (including our own).

(I find it interesting that in India, the higher cost of arranging dowries for their daughters is causing some rural Indians to commit female infanticide in the form of aborting female fetuses. This makes me think back to the old times when men wanted SONS to help them on the farm, 'cause at least they were useful...)

(I also find it very interesting the feminist analysis/slant/propaganda HAH! They can say all they want that hypergamy must be analyzed in the context of a patriarchal system - doesn't mean that assertion is true. More on that later)

Definitely men would prefer a lower-attractiveness, less-hassle woman long-term. It's bad enough to be coming back from a hell day and then have to deal with someone who's decided to be Mz Bitch™ for the evening and night...you get no fuckin' rest. Which is their MO, if you're tired out you'll be more likely to give in and give Mz Bitch™ what she wants.

Totally correct about men and women being miserable if they think the man is the weaker of the couple. Yet it seems to happen all the time. Why the misery? It's social conditioning - the man should be the stronger, the woman the weaker. Yet, thanks to female machinations in society and laws: upon entering the marriage the man has no power, the woman has all the power. Instant reversal of all the power dynamics.

Further she will deliberately attempt to change her man into something weaker. Which is why so many men end up as hollow shells. Read my post on Personal Time and Space is Golden for Men - especially think about the bit in the middle regarding domestic abuse, flipped on it's head, if she were another man pulling that crazy nagging shit. On the whole, deliberately turning the man she loved into a nothing that she'd rather not waste spit upon is psychotic to an extreme.

So let's look at this harder. Women *say* that they want a man superior to them etc...yet their *actions* are a constant attempt to deliberately destroy that man. One of the things that we are so big on in the Manosphere, the PUA's and MGTOW's and MRA's alike, is a pragmatic rule of thumb: "When words and actions do not match, always believe actions."

By their actions these women are saying: "I want to destroy you."

Which action-message is pretty-much confirmed when we start looking at the statistics regarding common male-destructive situations involving: false rape accusations, false domestic violence accusations, and frivorce. Think about that, when you think about your constant struggle with being dominant over your self-stated bog-average and very-far-below-you girlfriend.

Let's look at your senior fireman. Strong, handsome, a leader - unfortunately his wife makes more money than he does. This makes him unhappy because as the highest money-earner, she's the one in control and he's not really able to put her in her place - which both situations likewise make her unhappy. Why might this be?

Once I read The Predatory Female and The Manipulated Man (both in the list of Worthwhile Books page up top) I realized three things:

1/ Women are parasites.

2/ Parasites are lazy.

3/ Women are therefore lazy.

And that is the root of so-called hypergamy.

Women are marrying up - to guys who make more money, or are of a higher social standing/caste than they are (which usually includes money) - because they can then slack off, pump out a couple kids, and be fucking lazy with the excuse of "looking after the children". (I remember that Terrence Popp put out a video about women pumping out kids every couple of years. Also look up the concept of baby-jail and women having whoopsies to deliberately trap men.)

This is why your fireman's wife is unhaaaapy. He's unhappy because he's been conditioned all his life that "the man brings in more than the woman", it's part of the social memes that we all run mentally. She's unhappy because she can't be a lazy cunt and slack off while bringing up kiddies - one of the easiest jobs out there, especially these days.

'Cause she's gotten used to a certain amount of dollars coming in, y'know, the lifestyle-thing and all to which she has become accustomed...she's not attracted entirely to the man above her, she's attracted to the potentially lazy life that he represents, and her current hubby just ain't cuttin' it on that front.

Recently I've been putting up the posts about interchangeable, and a couple of those posts are about society and relationships. The whole basis of those posts, the underpinning, is laziness taken to an extreme.

So let's have a thought-experiment. Let's suppose that you demonstrate the following:

1/ Paying cash for expensive things of quality (not crapple status items and electroshit hybrid cars, but *true* quality)

2/ Being quite happy with second-hand stuff that is cheap but serviceable

3/ Having absolutely no debt of any kind (no credit card, no car finance, no mortgage, no bank loan or overdraft)

4/ That you work only the required hours to do the above - by choice! - and absolutely refuse to work harder/longer

I know two guys in exactly this situation. One has a house of his own that he paid cash for and he never bothers with women. He never has. He got the money together by living with his parents until he was 29-ish, he's now pushing his 40's. He's basically invisible to women, plus being totally not interested.

The other guy is 27 and rents, probably will for life. Without fail, every time, the woman in his life eventually breaks it off - calls him a "loser" - and forgets he exists. Utterly dead to her. (I'm almost in this situation myself - while I like fucking women, they don't tend to stay long once they grasp how my mentality works - which is "buy to last a lifetime". I will not buy certain things more than once.)

Why does this happen to these guys?

Because they're not easy prey. Neither of them. The parasite cannot lure them into the debt-trap of buy-buy-buy, new-new-new, upgrade-upgrade-upgrade, must-keep-up-with-the-Joneses, etc for her benefit. She cannot leech off of them. Once that becomes clear she reverts to her default of laziness. Fuck it. All men are interchangeable. I'll go find another loser that I can wrap around my finger and turn into my slave.

It's also very interesting to note that those four things make up a good start to the ideal partner - for a man. You might call that the mythical NAWALT, which I have written about a couple of times.

The feminist slant on Wikipedia states:

Feminist analysis of hypergamy says the practice needs to be understood in the context of a patriarchial system: ...

Yet when we flip it on it's head, when we look at it in the context of a matriarchal system where the women call the shots, where the women receive the benefits, and where the women are the ones in ultimate control - it looks a helluva lot like a parasite fastening onto a host, a slaveowner driving their slave to the ragged edge and an early grave.

No wonder they demand that it be examined in the context of a patriarchy, examining it in the context of a matriarchy makes them look like parasites and slaveowners.

But then, we already know that slavery is alive and well.

And now it is my Monday AM. Time to sleep, to give over the on-call to someone else later today, do my work, go to the gym, and finally go for a relaxing wander down the local beach. No woman earbashing me, no parasite leeching off me...a Man's heaven on earth...